Skip to main content
Log in

Safety-cost trade-offs in medical device reuse: a Markov decision process model

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Healthcare expenditures in the US are approaching $2 trillion, and hospitals and other healthcare providers are under tremendous pressure to rein in costs. One cost-saving approach which is gaining popularity is the reuse of medical devices which were designed only for a single use. Device makers decry this practice as unsanitary and unsafe, but a growing number of third-party firms are willing to sterilize, refurbish, and/or remanufacture devices and resell them to hospitals at a fraction of the original price. Is this practice safe? Is reliance on single-use devices sustainable? A Markov decision process (MDP) model is formulated to study the trade-offs involved in these decisions. Several key parameters are examined: device costs, device failure probabilities, and failure penalty cost. For each of these parameters, expressions are developed which identify the indifference point between using new and reprocessed devices. The results can be used to inform the debate on the economic, ethical, legal, and environmental dimensions of this complex issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alonso-Zaldivar R (2006) US healthcare tab grows faster than the economy. Los Angeles Times, January 10, A15

  2. Girion L, Alonso-Zaldivar R (2006) Steep rise projected for health spending. Los Angeles Times, February 22, C1

  3. Kerber R (2005) Device makers fight reuse of surgical tools. Boston Globe, October 19, D1

  4. Klein A (2005a) Reused devices attract entrepreneurs, scrutiny. Washington Post, December 12, A1

  5. Klein A (2005b) Hospitals save money, but safety is questioned. Washington Post, December 11, A1

  6. Gottfried K-L (2000) Are reprocessed medical devices really as good as new, and does it matter? HEC Forum 12:311–316

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dunn D (2002) Reprocessing single-use devices—the ethical dilemma. AORN J 75:989–999

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tapp A (2003) Reuse of single use medical devices. Can Oper Room Nurs J 21:18–9, 28–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. F W (2004) Singled out? Br J Perioper Nurs 14:122–125 (The Journal of the National Association of Theatre Nurses)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Smith JJ, Agraz JA (2001) Federal regulation of single-use medical devices: a revised FDA policy. Food Drug Law J 56:305–316

    Google Scholar 

  11. Spencer P, Zakaib G, Winter E (2001-2002) The risks of reuse: legal implications for hospitals of reusing single-use medical devices. Hosp Q 5:68–70

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wang EP (2001) Regulatory and legal implications of reprocessing and reuse of single-use medical devices. Food Drug Law J 56:77–98

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berenger SJ, Ferguson JK (2004) Reuse of single-use medical devices: how often does this still occur in Australia? Med J Aust 180:46–7

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fratila O, Tantau M (2006) Cleaning and disinfection in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current status in Romania. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 15:89–93

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koh A, Kawahara K (2005) Current practices and problems in the reuse of single-use devices in Japan. J Med Dent Sci 52:81–89

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abreu EL, Haire DM, Malchesky PS, Wolf-Bloom DF, Cornhill JF (2002) Development of a program model to evaluate the potential for reuse of single-use medical devices: results of a pilot test study. Biomed Instrum Technol 36:389–404 (Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Haley D (2004) Case outsourcing medical device reprocessing. AORN J 79:806–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Adler S, Scherrer M, Ruckauer KD, Daschner FD (2005) Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 19:268–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bourguignon C, Destrumelle AS, Koch S, Grumblat A, Carayon P, Chopard C, Woronoff-Lemsi MC (2003) Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy: a cost-minimization analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 58:226–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Prat F, Spieler JF, Paci S, Pallier C, Fritsch J, Choury AD, Pelletier G, Raspaud S, Nordmann P, Buffet C (2004) Reliability, cost-effectiveness, and safety of reuse of ancillary devices for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 60:246–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S (2004) Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18:727–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ishino Y, Ido K, Sugano K (2005) Contamination with hepatitis B virus DNA in gastrointestinal endoscope channels: risk of infection on reuse after on-site cleaning. Endoscopy 37:548–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hirsch N, Beckett A, Collinge J, Scaravilli F, Tabrizi S, Berry S (2005) Lymphocyte contamination of laryngoscope blades—a possible vector for transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Anaesthesia 60:664–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stone T, Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kelley D, Clery G (2004) Residual protein contamination of ProSeal laryngeal mask airways after two washing protocols. Anaesth Intensive Care 32:390–393

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tessarolo F, Caola I, Nollo G, Antolini R, Guarrera GM, Caciagli P (November 2006) Efficiency in endotoxin removal by a reprocessing protocol for electrophysiology catheters based on hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization. Int J Hyg Environ Health 209(6):557–565 (doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2006.05.001)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brown SA, Merritt K, Woods TO, McNamee SG, Hitchins VM (2002) Effects of different disinfection and sterilization methods on tensile strength of materials used for single-use devices. Biomed Instrum Technol 36:23–27 (Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. da Silva MV, Ade FR, Tde JP, (2005) Safety evaluation of single-use medical devices after submission to simulated reutilization cycles. J AOAC Int 88:823–829

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fedel M, Tessarolo F, Ferrari P, Losche C, Ghassemieh N, Guarrera GM, Nollo G (August 2006) Functional properties and performance of new and reprocessed coronary angioplasty balloon catheters. J Biomed Materi Res B, Appl Biomater 78(2):364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Valdez-Flores C, Feldman RM (1989) A survey of preventive maintenance models for stocastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Nav Res Logist 36:419–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dekker R, Wildeman RE, Van der Duyn Schouten FA (1997) A review of multi-component maintenance models with economic dependence. Math Methods Oper Res 45:411–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Derman C (1963) On optimal replacement rules when changes of state are Markovian. In: Bellman R (ed) Mathematical optimization techniques. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 201–210

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ross S (1971) Quality control under Markovian deterioration. Manage Sci 17:587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fleischmann M, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Dekker R, Van der Laan E, Van Nunen JAEE, Van Wassenhove LN (1997) Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review. Eur J Oper Res 103:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Flapper SDP, Van Nunen JAEE, Van Wassenhove LN (2005) Managing closed-loop supply chains. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Reverse logistics: quantitative models for closed-loop supply chains. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Krikke H, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) OR models for eco–eco closed-loop supply chain optimization. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove L (eds) Reverse logistics: quantitative models for closed loop supply chains. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 357–379

    Google Scholar 

  37. Inderfurth K, Flapper SDP, Lambert AJDF, Pappis CP, Voutsinas Theodore G (2004) Production planning for product recovery management. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) Reverse logistics: quantitative models for closed loop supply chains. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 249–274

    Google Scholar 

  38. Van der Laan EA, Kiesmuller G, Kuik R, Vlachos D, Dekker R (2004) Stochastic inventory control for product recovery management. In: Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (eds) Reverse logistics: Quantitative models for closed loop supply chains. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 181–220

    Google Scholar 

  39. Savaskan RC, Bhattacharya S, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Closed-loop supply chain models with product remanufacturing. Manage Sci 50:239–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Flapper SDP, Kiesmüller GP (1999) Reusable distribution items with a technically preset maximum number of usage. In: Proceedings second international working seminar on reuse, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp 45–54, March 1–3 1999

  41. Heyman DP, Sobel MJ (1984) Stochastic models in operations research: stochastic optimization, vol II. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wolff RW (1989) Stochastic modeling and the theory of queues. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kazaz B, Sloan T (May 2006) Production policies for multi-product systems with deteriorating process condition. Working paper, Univ. of Massachusetts Lowell, College of Management

  44. Abelson R (2005) To fight rising costs, hospitals seek allies in the operating room. New York Times, November 18, C1

  45. Williamson JE (2005) Great expectations: hospitals find FDA regs build stronger case for reprocessing. Healthc Purch News 29:28–32

    Google Scholar 

  46. Beamon BM, Fernandes C (2004) Supply-chain network configuration for product recovery. Prod Plan Control 15:270–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas W. Sloan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sloan, T.W. Safety-cost trade-offs in medical device reuse: a Markov decision process model. Health Care Manage Sci 10, 81–93 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9007-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9007-2

Keywords

Navigation